Genomic Evolution and Transcriptional Changes in the Evolution of Prostate Cancer into Neuroendocrine and Ductal Carcinoma Types.

Prostate cancer is typically of acinar adenocarcinoma type but can occasionally present as neuroendocrine and/or ductal type carcinoma. These are associated with clinically aggressive disease, and the former often arises on a background of androgen deprivation therapy, although it can also arise de novo. Two prostate cancer cases were sequenced by exome capture from archival tissue. Case 1 was de novo small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and ductal adenocarcinoma with three longitudinal samples over 5 years. Case 2 was a single time point after the development of treatment-related neuroendocrine prostate carcinoma. Case 1 showed whole genome doubling in all samples and focal amplification of AR in all samples except the first time point. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a common ancestry for ductal and small cell carcinoma. Case 2 showed 13q loss (involving RB1) in both adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma regions, and 3p gain, 4p loss, and 17p loss (involving TP53) in the latter. By using highly curated samples, we demonstrate for the first time that small-cell neuroendocrine and ductal prostatic carcinoma can have a common ancestry. We highlight whole genome doubling in a patient with prostate cancer relapse, reinforcing its poor prognostic nature.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476).

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

Interferon-Gamma-Producing CD8+ Tissue Resident Memory T Cells Are a Targetable Hallmark of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The pathogenesis of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-colitis remains incompletely understood. We sought to identify key cellular drivers of ICI-colitis and their similarities to idiopathic ulcerative colitis, and to determine potential novel therapeutic targets. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional approach to study patients with ICI-colitis, those receiving ICI without the development of colitis, idiopathic ulcerative colitis, and healthy controls. A subset of patients with ICI-colitis were studied longitudinally. We applied a range of methods, including multiparameter and spectral flow cytometry, spectral immunofluorescence microscopy, targeted gene panels, and bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing. RESULTS: We demonstrate CD8+ tissue resident memory T (TRM) cells are the dominant activated T cell subset in ICI-colitis. The pattern of gastrointestinal immunopathology is distinct from ulcerative colitis at both the immune and epithelial-signaling levels. CD8+ TRM cell activation correlates with clinical and endoscopic ICI-colitis severity. Single-cell RNA sequencing analysis confirms activated CD8+ TRM cells express high levels of transcripts for checkpoint inhibitors and interferon-gamma in ICI-colitis. We demonstrate similar findings in both anti-CTLA-4/PD-1 combination therapy and in anti-PD-1 inhibitor-associated colitis. On the basis of our data, we successfully targeted this pathway in a patient with refractory ICI-colitis, using the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Interferon gamma-producing CD8+ TRM cells are a pathological hallmark of ICI-colitis and a novel target for therapy.

The WIRE study a phase II, multi-arm, multi-centre, non-randomised window-of-opportunity clinical trial platform using a Bayesian adaptive design for proof-of-mechanism of novel treatment strategies in operable renal cell cancer - a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Window-of-opportunity trials, evaluating the engagement of drugs with their biological target in the time period between diagnosis and standard-of-care treatment, can help prioritise promising new systemic treatments for later-phase clinical trials. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the 7th commonest solid cancer in the UK, exhibits targets for multiple new systemic anti-cancer agents including DNA damage response inhibitors, agents targeting vascular pathways and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here we present the trial protocol for the WIndow-of-opportunity clinical trial platform for evaluation of novel treatment strategies in REnal cell cancer (WIRE). METHODS: WIRE is a Phase II, multi-arm, multi-centre, non-randomised, proof-of-mechanism (single and combination investigational medicinal product [IMP]), platform trial using a Bayesian adaptive design. The Bayesian adaptive design leverages outcome information from initial participants during pre-specified interim analyses to determine and minimise the number of participants required to demonstrate efficacy or futility. Patients with biopsy-proven, surgically resectable, cT1b+, cN0-1, cM0-1 clear cell RCC and no contraindications to the IMPs are eligible to participate. Participants undergo diagnostic staging CT and renal mass biopsy followed by treatment in one of the treatment arms for at least 14 days. Initially, the trial includes five treatment arms with cediranib, cediranib + olaparib, olaparib, durvalumab and durvalumab + olaparib. Participants undergo a multiparametric MRI before and after treatment. Vascularised and de-vascularised tissue is collected at surgery. A ≥ 30% increase in CD8+ T-cells on immunohistochemistry between the screening and nephrectomy is the primary endpoint for durvalumab-containing arms. Meanwhile, a reduction in tumour vascular permeability measured by Ktrans on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI by ≥30% is the primary endpoint for other arms. Secondary outcomes include adverse events and tumour size change. Exploratory outcomes include biomarkers of drug mechanism and treatment effects in blood, urine, tissue and imaging. DISCUSSION: WIRE is the first trial using a window-of-opportunity design to demonstrate pharmacological activity of novel single and combination treatments in RCC in the pre-surgical space. It will provide rationale for prioritising promising treatments for later phase trials and support the development of new biomarkers of treatment effect with its extensive translational agenda. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03741426 / EudraCT: 2018-003056-21 .

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related colitis assessment and prognosis: can IBD scoring point the way?

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve survival but cause immune-related adverse events (irAE). We sought to determine if CTCAE classification, IBD biomarkers/endoscopic/histological scores correlate with irAE colitis outcomes. METHODS: A dual-centre retrospective study was performed on patients receiving ICI for melanoma, NSCLC or urothelial cancer from 2012 to 2018. Demographics, clinical data, endoscopies (reanalysed using Mayo/Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) scores), histology (scored with Nancy Index) and treatment outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: In all, 1074 patients were analysed. Twelve percent (134) developed irAE colitis. Median patient age was 66, 59% were male. CTCAE diarrhoea grade does not correlate with steroid/ infliximab use. G3/4 colitis patients are more likely to need infliximab (p < 0.0001) but colitis grade does not correlate with steroid duration. CRP, albumin and haemoglobin do not correlate with severity. The UCEIS (p = 0.008) and Mayo (p = 0.016) scores correlate with severity/infliximab requirement. Patients with higher Nancy indices (3/4) are more likely to require infliximab (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: CTCAE assessment does not accurately reflect colitis severity and our data do not support its use in isolation, as this may negatively impact timely management. Our data support utilising endoscopic scoring for patients with >grade 1 CTCAE disease, and demonstrate the potential prognostic utility of objective histologic scoring.

Abiraterone plus Prednisone in Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, a drug that blocks endogenous androgen synthesis, plus prednisone is indicated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the clinical benefit of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1199 patients to receive either androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily, given once daily as four 250-mg tablets) plus prednisone (5 mg daily) (the abiraterone group) or androgen-deprivation therapy plus dual placebos (the placebo group). The two primary end points were overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 30.4 months at a planned interim analysis (after 406 patients had died), the median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone group than in the placebo group (not reached vs. 34.7 months) (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.76; P<0.001). The median length of radiographic progression-free survival was 33.0 months in the abiraterone group and 14.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55; P<0.001). Significantly better outcomes in all secondary end points were observed in the abiraterone group, including the time until pain progression, next subsequent therapy for prostate cancer, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen progression (P<0.001 for all comparisons), along with next symptomatic skeletal events (P=0.009). These findings led to the unanimous recommendation by the independent data and safety monitoring committee that the trial be unblinded and crossover be allowed for patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone. Rates of grade 3 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher in the abiraterone group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to androgen-deprivation therapy significantly increased overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; LATITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01715285 .).

Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer). RESULTS: A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544 .).

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with patients admitted to acute oncology wards: A national audit of current practice.

OBJECTIVES: To map current practice regarding discussions around resuscitation across England and Scotland in patients with cancer admitted acutely to hospital and to demonstrate the value of medical students in rapidly collecting national audit data. METHODS: Collaborators from the Macmillan medical student network collected data from 251 patient encounters across eight hospitals in England and Scotland. Data were collected to identify whether discussion regarding resuscitation was documented as having taken place during inpatient admission to acute oncology. As an audit standard, it was expected that all patients should be invited to discuss resuscitation within 24 hr of admission. RESULTS: Resuscitation discussions were had in 43.1% of admissions and of these 64.0% were within 24 hr; 27.6% of all admissions. 6.5% of patients had a "do not attempt resuscitation" order prior to admission with a difference noted between patients receiving palliative and curative treatment (8.5% and 0.39%, respectively, p < .05). Discussions regarding escalation of care took place in only 29.3% of admissions. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight deficiencies in the number of discussions regarding resuscitation that are being conducted with cancer patients that become acutely unwell. It also demonstrates the value of medical student collaboration in rapidly collecting national audit data.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the interim analyses of the LATITUDE study, the addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) led to a significant improvement in overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Here, we present long-term survival outcomes and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and ADT from the final analysis of the LATITUDE study. METHODS: This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 235 sites in 34 countries. Eligible patients (men aged ≥18 years) had newly diagnosed, histologically or cytologically confirmed prostate cancer with metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and at least two of the three high-risk prognostic factors (Gleason score of ≥8, presence of three or more lesions on bone scan, or presence of measurable visceral metastasis except lymph node metastasis). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) once daily orally plus prednisone (5 mg) once daily orally and ADT (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group) or matching placebos plus ADT (placebo group); each treatment cycle was 28 days. Randomisation was done by a centralised interactive web response system in a country-by-country scheme using permuted block randomisation, stratified by presence of visceral disease and ECOG performance status. The coprimary endpoint of overall survival was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 12, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 1209 patients were screened, of whom ten were ineligible because of study site violations. 1199 patients were randomly assigned to either the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (n=597) or placebo group (n=602). After the results of the first interim analysis (cutoff date Oct 31, 2016), the study was unmasked to patients and investigators, and patients in the placebo group were allowed to cross over to receive abiraterone acetate and prednisone plus ADT treatment as per a protocol amendment (Feb 15, 2017) in an open-label extension phase of the study (up to 18 months from the protocol amendment). This final analysis (data cutoff Aug 15, 2018) was done after a median follow-up of 51·8 months (IQR 47·2-57·0) and 618 deaths (275 [46%] of 597 in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and 343 [57%] of 602 in the placebo group). Overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (median 53·3 months [95% CI 48·2-not reached]) than in the placebo group (36·5 months [33·5-40·0]), with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (95% CI 0·56-0·78; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (125 [21%] in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group vs 60 [10%] in the placebo group vs three [4%] in the 72 patients who crossed over from placebo to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone) and hypokalaemia (70 [12%] vs ten [2%] vs two [3%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 192 (32%) of 597 patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group, 151 (25%) of 602 in the placebo group, and four (6%) of 72 in the crossover group. The most common treatment-related serious adverse event was hypokalaemia (four [1%] patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and none in the other groups). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (<1%) patients each in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (gastric ulcer perforation, sudden death, and cerebrovascular accident) and the placebo group (sudden death, cerebrovascular accident, and pneumonia), with none in the crossover group. INTERPRETATION: The combination of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with ADT was associated with significantly longer overall survival than placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk mCSPC and had a manageable safety profile. These findings support the use of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as a standard of care in patients with high-risk mCSPC. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Case report of oxalate nephropathy in a patient with pancreatic metastases from renal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal carcinoma frequently have pre-existing renal impairment and not infrequently develop worsening renal function as a complication of their treatment. The presence of pancreatic metastases in patients with metastatic renal carcinoma, often confers a more favourable prognosis and as a consequence this patient group may be exposed to such treatments for more prolonged periods of time. However, the development of renal failure may also be a consequence of the cancer itself rather than its treatment. CASE PRESENTATION: We present an 84-year-old patient receiving the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) pazopanib for metastatic renal carcinoma who developed oxalate nephropathy as a consequence of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency resulting from pancreatic metastases. CONCLUSIONS: This case demonstrates the importance of investigating unexpected toxicities and highlights the potential consequences of pancreatic insufficiency and its sequelae in patients with pancreatic metastases.

Urothelial cancer: a narrative review of the role of novel immunotherapeutic agents with particular reference to the management of non-muscle-invasive disease.

AIM: This narrative review describes current guidelines for treating NMIBC, provides an overview of the principle behind immune checkpoint inhibition, and summarizes current evidence for checkpoint inhibitors in urothelial malignancy. Further, we discuss potential strategies for immune checkpoint inhibition in the management of NMIBC. BACKGROUND: Adjuvant intravesical BCG immunotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) for decades but is associated with both a significant side effect profile and failure rate. Recently, a substantial body of trial data has been published demonstrating the successful use of systemic immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced urothelial malignancy and, in particular, a class of drugs known as 'immune checkpoint inhibitors'. This has led to the approval of a number of these drugs by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Food and Drug Administration, and ongoing trials are examining use in the management of NMIBC. METHODS: To identify relevant published data, using the PubMed/ Medline search engine, an online search of the Pubmed/ Medline archives was conducted using the terms bladder cancer' in combination with 'checkpoint inhibitors', and limited to articles in English published between 1966 and September 2017.To identify ongoing trials of interest but not yet published, a further search of the clinical trials.gov search engine was conducted using the term 'non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer'. CONCLUSION: There has been little advance in available adjuvant therapy for NMIBC treated with TURBT. Current intravesical therapies are associated with a high recurrence rate and significant side effect profile. The impending publication of the wealth of ongoing trials, both into the delivery and efficacy of checkpoint inhibition will direct the future treatment of NMIBC.

Patient-reported outcomes following abiraterone acetate plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): an international, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the LATITUDE trial, addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved overall survival compared with placebos plus ADT in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Understanding the effects of treatments on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is important for treatment decisions; therefore we aimed to analyse the effects of ADT plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus ADT plus placebos on PROs and HRQOL in patients in the LATITUDE study. METHODS: In the multicentre, international, randomised, phase 3 LATITUDE trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed, high-risk, metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer confirmed by bone scan (bone metastases) or by CT or MRI (visceral, soft tissue, or nodal metastases), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 2 or less. Patients from 235 clinical sites in 34 countries were randomly assigned (1:1) following a country-by-country scheme done by permuted block randomisation (with two blocks) and stratified by the presence of visceral metastasis and ECOG performance status to receive ADT plus 1000 mg oral abiraterone acetate and 5 mg oral prednisone once daily or ADT plus placebos. Selection of ADT, chemical or surgical, was at the investigator's discretion. The co-primary endpoints of the trial, overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival, have been published. PRO data were collected directly on electronic tablet devices at the clinical sites during screening and before any other visit procedure on day 1 of cycles 1-3, monthly during cycles 4-13, and then every 2 months until the end of treatment, by use of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Prostate scale (FACT-P), and the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires. PRO analyses were an exploratory endpoint. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. Results from the first pre-planned interim analysis (Oct 31, 2016), are presented here. This ongoing study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01715285. FINDINGS: Between Feb 12, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 1199 patients were randomly assigned: 597 to ADT plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone and 602 to ADT plus placebos. Median follow-up was 30·9 months (IQR 21·2-33·2) in the ADT plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone group versus 29·7 months (1·4-43·5; 16·1-31·3) in the ADT plus placebos group. Median time to worst pain intensity progression assessed by the BPI-SF score was not reached in either group (ADT plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone, not reached [95% CI not reached to not reached]; 25th percentile 11·07 months [95% CI 9·23-18·43]; ADT plus placebos group, not reached [95% CI not reached to not reached]; 25th percentile 5·62 [95% CI 4·63-7·39]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·52-0·77]; p<0·0001). Median time to worst fatigue intensity was not reached in either the ADT plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone group (not reached [95% CI not reached to not reached]; 25th percentile 18·4 months [95% CI 12·9-27·7]) or the ADT plus placebos group (not reached [95% CI not reached to not reached]; 25th percentile 6·5 months [95% CI 5·6-9·2]; HR 0·65 [95% CI 0·53-0·81], p=0·0001). Median time to deterioration of functional status assessed by the FACT-P total score scale was 12·9 months (95% CI 9·0-16·6) in the ADT plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone group versus 8·3 months (7·4-11·1) in the ADT plus placebos group (HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74-0·99]; p=0·032). INTERPRETATION: The addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to ADT in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer improved overall PROs by consistently showing a clinical benefit in the progression of pain, prostate cancer symptoms, fatigue, functional decline, and overall HRQOL. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Development of a best-practice clinical guideline for the use of bleomycin in the treatment of germ cell tumours in the UK.

Bleomycin, a cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, forms a key component of curative regimens for lymphoma and germ cell tumours. It can be associated with severe toxicity, long-term complications and even death in extreme cases. There is a lack of evidence or consensus on how to prevent and monitor bleomycin toxicity. We surveyed 63 germ cell cancer physicians from 32 cancer centres across the UK to understand their approach to using bleomycin. Subsequent guideline development was based upon current practice, best available published evidence and expert consensus. We observed heterogeneity in practice in the following areas: monitoring; route of administration; contraindications to use; baseline and follow-up investigations performed, and advice given to patients. A best-practice clinical guideline for the use of bleomycin in the treatment of germ cell tumours has been developed and includes recommendations regarding baseline investigations, the use of pulmonary function tests, route of administration, monitoring and patient advice. It is likely that existing heterogeneity in clinical practice of bleomycin prescribing has significant economic, safety and patient experience implications. The development of an evidence-based consensus guideline was supported by 93% of survey participants and aims to address these issues and homogenise practice across the UK.

DNA-Repair Defects and Olaparib in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, but current treatments are not based on molecular stratification. We hypothesized that metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA-repair defects would respond to poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with olaparib. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial in which patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with olaparib tablets at a dose of 400 mg twice a day. The primary end point was the response rate, defined either as an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as a reduction of at least 50% in the prostate-specific antigen level or a confirmed reduction in the circulating tumor-cell count from 5 or more cells per 7.5 ml of blood to less than 5 cells per 7.5 ml. Targeted next-generation sequencing, exome and transcriptome analysis, and digital polymerase-chain-reaction testing were performed on samples from mandated tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Overall, 50 patients were enrolled; all had received prior treatment with docetaxel, 49 (98%) had received abiraterone or enzalutamide, and 29 (58%) had received cabazitaxel. Sixteen of 49 patients who could be evaluated had a response (33%; 95% confidence interval, 20 to 48), with 12 patients receiving the study treatment for more than 6 months. Next-generation sequencing identified homozygous deletions, deleterious mutations, or both in DNA-repair genes--including BRCA1/2, ATM, Fanconi's anemia genes, and CHEK2--in 16 of 49 patients who could be evaluated (33%). Of these 16 patients, 14 (88%) had a response to olaparib, including all 7 patients with BRCA2 loss (4 with biallelic somatic loss, and 3 with germline mutations) and 4 of 5 with ATM aberrations. The specificity of the biomarker suite was 94%. Anemia (in 10 of the 50 patients [20%]) and fatigue (in 6 [12%]) were the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, findings that are consistent with previous studies of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib in patients whose prostate cancers were no longer responding to standard treatments and who had defects in DNA-repair genes led to a high response rate. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682772; Cancer Research UK number, CRUK/11/029.).

Incidentally detected testicular lesions <10 mm in diameter: can orchidectomy be avoided?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pathology of excised testicular lesions <10 mm in size. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The pathological reports of 2 681 patients with testicular lesions from Barts Health NHS Trust and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were reviewed as part of a service evaluation audit from January 2003 to May 2016. Cases in which the lesion had a maximum diameter of <10 mm were selected. Clinical features were also accessed, where available, to examine patient demographics, prediagnostic levels of serum markers, ultrasonographic findings and clinical details. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients with a lesion size <10 mm on histology were identified and, of these, 16 (20%) had a lesion diameter <5 mm. Of the 81 patients, 56 (69%) had benign lesions. Of 16 patients with a benign lesion <5 mm in diameter, 15 underwent orchidectomy and just one underwent partial orchidectomy. Preoperative tumour markers were available in 47/81 patients. None of the 16 malignant tumours in these 47 patients were associated with raised tumour markers, while seven of 31 remaining patients with benign lesions had raised α-fetoprotein and lactate dehydrogenase levels. In total there were 25/81 malignant cases (31%), which were all germ cell tumours (GCTs): 15 seminomas (60%) and 10 non-seminomatous GCTs (40%). Only one GCT had a diameter of <5 mm, and this was a regressed tumour within an 18-mm area of granulomatous inflammation. Only one GCT relapsed: a clinical stage I, embryonal carcinoma of 6 mm in maximum diameter. The 56 'benign' cases included 34 sex cord stromal tumours, including 23 Leydig cell tumours (41%), eight Sertoli cell tumours (14%) and three mixed sex cord stromal tumours (5%). None showed any malignant features. The remaining 22/56 lesions (40%) were lesions with no further follow-up. Benign lesions seemed to be associated with a small diameter, and we found <5 mm to be the best threshold for predicting benign vs malignant lesions (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The majority of testicular lesions <10 mm, identified by radiology, were benign, although approxmiately one-third were malignant. In the present study, 100% of lesions <5 mm in diameter were benign. Tumour markers appear to be unhelpful in the distinction of these small tumours. We suggest that regular ultrasound surveillance be more widely used for testicular lesions of this size. Testicular tumours now have a very high cure rate and changes in size of lesions may be monitored prospectively with minimal risk of increased morbidity. Patients who undergo an orchidectomy for lesions <5 mm are 'victims of modern imaging technology'. If surgery is undertaken in lesions 5-10 mm, patients should be counselled that two-thirds of cases are benign.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Activity and safety of ODM-201 in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (ARADES): an open-label phase 1 dose-escalation and randomised phase 2 dose expansion trial.

BACKGROUND: ODM-201 is a novel androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor designed to block the growth of prostate cancer cells through high-affinity binding to the AR and inhibition of AR nuclear translocation. This trial assessed ODM-201's safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: The ARADES trial is an open-label phase 1-2 trial undertaken in 23 hospitals across Europe and USA with ongoing long-term follow-up. Men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who had castrate concentrations of testosterone and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1 were enrolled. In the phase 1 part of the trial, patients were given oral ODM-201 at a starting daily dose of 200 mg, which was increased to 400 mg, 600 mg, 1000 mg, 1400 mg, and 1800 mg. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned centrally and stratified by previous chemotherapy and treatment with CPY17 inhibitors, to receive one of three daily doses of ODM-201 (200 mg, 400 mg, and 1400 mg). The primary endpoint in phase 1 was safety and tolerability, whereas in phase 2 it was the proportion of patients with a PSA response (50% or greater decrease in serum PSA) at week 12. All analyses included patients who had received at least one dose of ODM-201. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317641, and NCT01429064 for the follow-up after 12 weeks. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between April 5, 2011, and March 12, 2013. In phase 1, 24 patients were enrolled to six sequential cohorts of three to six patients and received a daily dose of ODM-201, 200-1800 mg. No dose-limiting toxic effects were reported and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. In phase 1, three patients reported eight adverse events of grade 3 (fracture, muscle injury, laceration, paralytic ileus, pain, presyncope, urinary retention, and vomiting) and one patient had a grade 4 adverse event (lymphoedema). None of the grade 3-4 adverse events were deemed to be related to ODM-201. Of the phase 1 patients, the four who received 200 mg, seven who received 400 mg, and three who received 1400 mg entered the phase 2 part of the trial. In addition to these patients, 110 were randomly assigned to three groups: 200 mg (n=38), 400 mg (n=37), and 1400 mg (n=35). For these patients, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue or asthenia (15 [12%] of 124 patients), hot flush (six [5%]), and decreased appetite (five [4%]). One patient (<1%) had a grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (fatigue); no patients had a treatment-emergent grade 4 adverse event. 38 patients who received 200 mg, 39 who received 400 mg, and 33 who received 1400 mg were assessable for PSA response at 12 weeks. 11 (29%) patients in the 200 mg group, 13 (33%) in the 400 mg group, and 11 (33%) in the 1400 mg group had a PSA response at 12 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that ODM-201 monotherapy in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer provides disease suppression and that ODM-201 has a favourable safety profile. These findings support further investigation of clinical responses with ODM-201 in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.